Perhaps they'll listen now

Political Compass Test: What Are My Thoughts On The Economy?

Continuing the political compass test, we come to my opinions on the economy. Feel free to complete the test alongside me and be sure to enter your results into the comments below.

Let’s get into it.

The biggest factor in one’s life before they are born is the socioeconomic status of their parents. Nationalities and race don’t have much to do with character but wealth certainly does. Someone who was raised rich is bound to be different from someone who was raised poor. Nationalities and classes are both human inventions, but the latter is a far more powerful tool for division in our society.

I’m not an economist, but as far as I know, the control of inflation is more important than the supply of job opportunities. Inflation dictates the purchasing power of your money and the price of goods. If an economy reaches hyperinflation, the consequences are far more severe than an economy with high unemployment. What’s the point of working if the money you earn is practically worthless?

I’m quite conflicted with this statement. On one hand, I think the government should do its best to protect the environment, but on the other hand, I want corporations to remain free from necessary outside interference. Ultimately, it is a matter of how necessary the regulation is and whether it may have consequences that will be passed on to the consumer.

This is an underlying belief of socialism and communism, and therefore, I am against it. Fundamentally, it isn’t even a good idea because it means that people deserve the same result regardless of their work. Those who slouch get the same as those who sit up and work hard—that just isn’t right. It puts too much power in the hands of the government, as they are the ones who decide what job you will have and how much you and everyone else will make. Freedom means individual failure and success. This is just mediocrity for all.

How is the existence of bottled water a sad reflection on our society? If a company puts clean drinking water in a bottle, then it is only because the people wanted it. If this wasn’t the case, you wouldn’t be buying it. When we have a need or want, a company replies with a product. It’s as simple as that.

Why not? An alternative to land as a commodity is an alternative to capitalism. There is no other way for individuals to own land if some kind of transaction or inheritance doesn’t take place. In a socialist or communist society, it’s not really you who owns the land but the ‘community.’

The problem with this statement and the reason why I disagree with it is because it implies an ambiguous idea of what a ‘contribution’ to society looks like. There are many professions that reward wealth without having its workers make a direct impact on their community. But earning and spending is itself a contribution to society. I make money, and I spend money. When that happens, someone else makes money and are able to spend it on their own well-being. Society is made up of individuals. You don’t need to be sweeping the floors of your local public bathroom in other to make a difference.

‘Sometimes’ is the key word in this one. I don’t want to rule out situations where protectionism is necessary for a particular country or economy to thrive.

The job of a business is to make money. Everything else revolves around that main goal. As long as it pays its taxes and follows the regulations put upon it, a business and its shareholders have no other responsibility to society. If a company wants to be socially responsible in other ways, it does so only to improve its image or brand. Many companies are built on the idea of social responsibility and have found a way to make it profitable. Tesla sells electric cars that are good for the environment, but they also make a killing for their shareholders.

The rich are usually the most taxed, and that’s because they obviously make more than everyone else. But in general, taxes should be lowered for people of all classes and wealth statuses.

I don’t see any reason why a higher standard of medical care should be barred from being purchased. If you have the money to do so, you can acquire a better lawyer, so why should there be any difference in how we attain doctors and medical care? In all other aspects of society, higher standards of living and service come with a higher asking price.

Governments shouldn’t control businesses, but they should act as a watchdog over any activity that misleads the consumer. There are rules that must be followed, and no business should be allowed to run false advertising or lie to consumers about what they’re getting.

A genuine free market has no restrictions. This isn’t an opinion as much as it is a fact. If there were restrictions, it wouldn’t be a genuine free market.

Your freedom is not based on your ability to make transactions; however, by removing the barriers to do so, you are indeed freer. I’m not going to strongly agree with this statement, as I think there can come a point where the market begins to dominate the people and their freedom. If we allow companies to grow so large and monopolistic that they engulf the competition, we limit our ability to make purchasing decisions.